RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: nweek 5 results!

["Gavin Doig" <gmd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Right, found it.  It was ruled illegal by CFJ 305,
> so the Admin was not at the time obligated to
> do anything in response to it, and the game
> state wasn't affected then.
>
Right.

> So if your action was an illegal action then,
> but by r129 is a legal action now, then r129
> is changing the nature of the action.  Since
> the action was in the past, r129 making it
> legal would change the past, which is illegal by
> r17, which takes precedence over r129.
>
I was going to agree with you. Like Bean says, I've made my point - r129 is broken, and this is really a preferable way for it to be broken. But... I think you're wrong. ;-)

The problem is that you're paraphrasing the rules again. R129 doesn't say "become legal". It says "treated *as* *if* they were legal". That's not a change to the actual legality in the past, it's a change to the way the rules view the legality now. Which is the problem with rules prohibiting retroactivity - they don't really accomplish much, because you can always just change the game to a state equivalent to changing it in the past. But I digress. ;-)

uin.
-- 

_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Win a ski trip!
http://www.nowcode.com/register.asp?affiliate=1net2phone3a